The point is why cant we expect the women to adjust to the realities of the world? Wherever there are girls they are going to talk about other girls and their shoes and that sorta stuff which I might find offensive and wherever there are men they are going to talk about sex. I don't see why women take an offense to that. No one is cracking a joke on her or asking her to participate in the joke.
I would rather have a sexist but cohesive team rather than a politically correct non-cohesive team. We need more and more productive people in the business, whether they are men, women or trans does not matter. People like the lady in question in my opinion are hurdle to building good teams.
I expect Sendgrid to say something about the conduct of their employee.
> The point is why cant we expect the women to adjust to the realities of the world?
Why can't you adjust to the realities of the world where the view that women should just deal with whatever crap that exists in tech seems like a pretty terrible idea? Why can't you adjust to the reality that this means tech loses out on a lot of talent? Why can't you adjust to the reality that if you want to hire good talent, you need to provide an environment where they'll actually feel comfortable instead of demanding/expecting them to "adjust"?
> I expect Sendgrid to say something about the conduct of their employee.
For a bunch of reasons, I don't and I'm fine with that.
>you need to provide an environment where they'll actually feel comfortable instead of demanding/expecting them to "adjust"
You are only repeating what I said but from the other side of the shore. I have an all male team that is working perfectly fine for me. I have provided them an environment where they feel comfortable and they are productive. If a women enters the team AND she is not comfortable with my rest of the team's habits I would rather ask her to leave than to ask the rest of the team to adjust. For two reasons
1. It is the most optimal solution.
2. Secondly, because I don't even know if the girl I have hired is good enough for that.
>whatever crap that exists in tech
Just because you think something is crap does not make it crap.
> tech loses out on a lot of talent
The PyCon had only 20% women folks that too after a lot of efforts taken especially to increase that number. Is 20% really lot of talent for you ? (I am only using PyCon figures as a rough estimate here).
All my arguments are perfectly applicable when you juxtapose the genders. I will not ask my all female team to adjust because the newly hired male member might feel uncomfortable.
We should optimize out work environments for productivity and not gender equality.
What is wrong with making a joke about a penis? Why is that sexist? It would be sexist if they were directing jokes at or objectifying her. If they had said, "Would you like to see my dongle?" or "I'd like to fork your repo, Adria", I would understand her outrage.
I grabbed a couple citations while I was there because I was also curious:
* http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0432.00129/a... - "Although generalizations from student-based studies to the workplace is problematic, the results indicate that groups may be more effective when women outnumber or equal men, especially in complex management activities requiring extensive information management and processing, planning and decision-making over protracted periods."
* http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/27/1/79.short - "Overall, in this study, gender diversity facilitated task performance for a male-oriented task without sacrificing cohesion or at the expense of increased decision-making time." (From the full text of the paper, the last concluding sentence.)
So I'm not sure why you would assert:
> We all know that you can't provide any evidence to back this up
 I have no idea what they mean by this, but I'm going to guess "tech" would probably be classified as such.
>This study has four limitations. First, the sample comprised students only working within fictitious enterprises in hypothetical industries and, as such, may not represent what actually happens in reality.
>Second, the sample size was smaller than ideal.
>Third, ethnic minorities were not identified among group members ... non-European individuals were present, but comprised less than 10% of the total sample.
>Finally, no all-women groups were included within the study.
>The use of student subjects is problematic, however, they remain one of the few sets of participants who are readily accessible
And regarding the second study, I have no idea what that concluding sentence even means. Because in the discussion, the authors state:
>As expected the task was oriented toward males. Consequently, as the male gender ratio increased, decision quality improved. However, the lone-female teams outperformed the all-male teams.
Further the study is based on asking groups of undergraduates to carry out the winter survival task (i.e. if your plane crashed in a forest, rank these 12 items in order of importance for survival). It is beyond ridiculous to extrapolate anything from these results and apply it to group productivity in extremely technical professional fields.
Please feel free to cite studies with better methodologies! I merely cited what I found on a cursory search. I entirely agree that the methodology of the studies is limiting, however at the moment, the only evidence I've discovered points towards the position you made the following assertion about:
> We all know that you can't provide any evidence to back this up. What is your agenda? Why do you think we are stupid?
The assertion you made is that there was no evidence to support pencilcode's assertion that gender diverse teams perform better. I believe this assertion is false, the top results of a cursory search that I made out of curiosity provided evidence which supported pencilcode's position.
However, I of course agree that two papers is hardly conclusive, so feel free to cite more studies if you want to start wading into the pool of evidence available to us on this topic.